Biblical reconciliation: Preaching unity in the face of Christian nationalism and political schism

Introduction

The US political landscape in the post-Obama era has been marked by deepening and widening divides between political parties and the Christian community. The polarizing effect of “partisan antipathy,” ¹ ideological divisions, and policy disagreements threatens the unity of the “body of Christ” in churches and the everyday lives of followers of Jesus. While several key factors have contributed to the present schisms, the growing divide can be observed in all its facets by examining the political rhetoric and identity politics since the election of the 44th president of the United States. Divisive identity politics, in which political campaigns focus on issues related to identity (race, religion, immigration, and status), have significantly shaped party platforms and voter alignment. The political schism between the Democratic and Republican parties post-Obama poses several challenges to bipartisan cooperation and has contributed to a more polarized political landscape in the United States. The growing political schism in the US Christian community is threatening the unity for which Jesus prayed, as written in John 17:20-23:

I ask not only on behalf of these but also on behalf of those who believe in me through their word, that they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. The glory that you have given me I have given them, so that they may be one, as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may become completely one, so that the world may know that you have sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me. (NRSVue)

In the post-Obama era, observers of the state of US politics are witnesses to a growing influence of Christian nationalism and its associated attitudes about pluralism, social justice, ² and trust in the democratic process. While the term “Christian nationalism” has a wide range of interpretations, it generally refers to a political ideology that fuses Christian identity with national identity, often asserting that the United States is a fundamentally Christian nation. ³ This ideology has significantly shaped political attitudes and has contributed to the increasing polarization that has characterized US politics in recent years.

In contrast to Christian nationalism, the common identity of the Christian community rests on the shared belief that Jesus’s ministry of reconciliation accomplished two otherwise impossible objectives: reconciling the relationship between humankind and the Creator and reconciling the harmonious relationship God intended for all kinds of people in a community. Therefore, if the Christian community has a socio-human mission, it is to demonstrate the power of the Gospel of Jesus Christ to bring unity among people who are divided with hostility toward one another. The Christian community, however, particularly those who call themselves evangelicals, has become entangled in the post-Obama political schism to the degree that the indivisible union of believers has become increasingly fractured along the political fault line. A 2023 report by the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) states the eminent threat to democracy posed by growing sentiments toward American Nationalism this way:

The rising influence of Christian nationalism in some segments of American politics poses a major threat to the health of our democracy. Increasingly, the major battle lines of the culture war are being drawn between a right animated by a Christian nationalist worldview and Americans who embrace the country’s growing racial and religious diversity. ⁴

Evangelical theology, characterized by a set of core beliefs that emphasize the authority of the Bible, has been notably influential in US politics since the mid-1970s, as indicated in a 2021 article in The Economist. That article points to the year 1976, which Newsweek declared “the year of the evangelical,” as the time when the influence of the evangelical movement became significant enough to begin shifting US politics, even playing a role in who would be elected President of the United States. ⁵ From “born-again” Democrat Jimmy Carter to Republican Ronald Reagan, the evangelical political influence demonstrated that it could switch political parties to accomplish its objective, namely, to put a President in the White House that espoused their religious and political ideologies. After the election of the two-term President Ronald Reagan, the evangelical movement became indelibly linked to the Republican party, influencing the election of George H. W. Bush, who “was a lifetime Episcopalian, part of the blue blood of America’s founding Christianity, and was part of a Republican opening to evangelicalism that changed the country’s landscape.” ⁶ The next Republican president, George H. Bush, “was born again as an evangelical Christian in 1985 with the help of Billy Graham.” ⁷

The first post-Obama Republican President, Donald J. Trump, is an exception to his Republican predecessors in ways that suggest another influential power has entered the environment, along with traditional evangelical core beliefs and values, to bolster his enduring appeal to some White evangelicals. A 2017 PRRI survey shows that two out of three US evangelicals are White. The survey also found that two-thirds of White evangelicals are Christian nationalism adherents, compared with 6% of White non-evangelicals.

Notably, Donald Trump garnered more partisan support in 2016 and 2020 from White evangelicals than any Presidential candidate since the mid-1970s. ⁸ Chinese author Shaoqing Zhou refers to this confluence of evangelical theology and Christian nationalism as “Evangelical nationalism,” “a new manifestation of American nationalism in the twenty-first century” ⁹ :

The election of Donald Trump as president in 2016 marked the development of conservatism, such as evangelicalism in the U.S., from a religiously conservative force to a full-blown nationalism. Evangelical nationalism rose in the context of response to dramatically changing internal and external environments, the adjustment of traditional conservative strategies, the revival of white racism, the interplay between civic and ethnic nationalism, and the crisis of modernity. ¹⁰

Does the entanglement of a significant portion of evangelicals in the expanding political divide in the United States signal a departure from the foundations of traditional evangelicalism toward White evangelical nationalism? And is the hegemonic power of Christian nationalism showing itself to be able to redefine a significant Christian movement?

In 2 Cor 5:10-20, the focal text of this article, the apostle Paul emphasizes the future judgment that everyone will face before the seat of Christ. He uses reverent awe and recognition of God’s authority, a tenet of evangelicalism, as persuasive motivation toward unity. Paul encourages the Corinthians to boast not in outward appearances but in the transformation that has occurred in their hearts through love, as demonstrated by Christ. Paul emphasizes that Christ’s love motivates (psychologically, socially, and politically) and controls their actions. Furthermore, the love Paul writes about can transform believers into a new creation in Christ. For the believer, this transformation involves letting go of their old life by embracing the new life in Christ. Paul attributes this sanctification process to God (1 Cor 1:2, 30), stating that through Christ reconciliation with God has occurred. Furthermore, believers are given the “ministry of reconciliation,” which involves sharing this message of reconciliation and demonstrating its effect on others. In 2 Cor 5:10-20, Paul emphasizes the centrality of Christ’s love, the transformative nature of salvation, and the active role believers play in sharing the message of reconciliation as ambassadors of Christ.

In this article, I discuss how preaching the reconciling power of Christ’s love can be applied to disentangle the Christian community from political schisms while nurturing unity among believers. Furthermore, the ministry of reconciliation is not only a theoretical concept; it is a practical calling for believers to actively share the message of reconciliation with others in a time of increasing division among them. It involves a radical shift in perspective, no longer evaluating people based on ideological positions but based on their positionality in their relationship with Christ, his followers, and their neighbors. Preaching unity in the face of political schism is a Gospel imperative.

Christian nationalism and political schism

Recent research brings to light significant interrelated variables that contribute to the political dividedness of the United States and the Christian community post-Obama. A 2022 study published by the Pew Research Center presents several findings illuminating the public’s views of the United States as a Christian nation, its attitudes toward Christian nationalism, and its contribution to the nation’s political dividedness. In the study, more than four in ten respondents thought the United States should be a Christian nation, and a third said the United States is a Christian nation today. ¹¹ Eight in ten White Evangelicals (81%) say the country’s founders intended it to be a Christian nation, making them the Christian group most heavily inclined toward Christian nationalism. There are also sizable differences between political parties regarding the place of Christianity in the United States’ national identity. Two-thirds of Republicans and independents who lean toward the GOP (67%) say the United States should be a Christian nation—more than double the share of Democrats and Democratic leaners with the same view (29%). Republicans are also far more likely than Democrats to say the founders intended for the country to be a Christian nation (76% vs. 47%), and they are less likely to think the country is presently a Christian nation (29% vs. 39%). ¹²

Christian nationalism is not a new phenomenon in the United States, but its prominence and influence have experienced a resurgence in the post-Obama era. The Obama presidency marked a period of social and cultural shifts, with debates over issues such as same-sex marriage and healthcare reform. Some segments of the Christian community perceived these changes as a threat to their traditional values, fueling the rise of Christian nationalism as a response. ¹³ Andrew L. Whitehead and Samuel L. Perry discuss the growing schism: “Christian nationalism gives divine sanction to ethnocentrism and nativism.” Christian nationalism is, they argue, a divisive creed; its adherents are more likely than other groups to believe “Muslims and Atheists hold morally inferior values.” ¹⁴

A 2023 New Yorker article connects significant nation-redefining, political turning points with forming a US Christian identity, suggesting that for the Christian Nationalist, there is no separation between church and state. Supporting this point of view is D. James Kennedy, who was a US Presbyterian pastor, evangelist, Christian broadcaster, and author. He was the senior pastor of Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, from 1960 until his death in 2007. The stated purpose of his religious network is to reclaim America for Christ, closing the gap between church and state that he asserts is written into the Constitution. ¹⁵

The implication, therefore, is that US Christian Nationalism in the post-Obama era, and by extension the Trump era, is the ingrafted growth product of the vision of a “city on a hill,” to which John Winthrop, the future Governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, compared the settlement in “covenant” with God in 1630. ¹⁶ Winthrop, in his sermon, appears to be warning his fellow Puritans, while quoting Matt 5:14, that their new community would be “as a city upon a hill, the eyes of all people are upon us,” meaning, if they did not uphold their covenant with God, their sins would be exposed for all the world to see. ¹⁷ On the other side of the warning was the promise that if the community remained faithful to God, it would be a shining example of the Christian community to all who see it. President Ronald Reagan, in November 1980, in his election-eve address, “A Vision for America,” referred to John Winthrop’s vision of a “city on a hill.” Reagan is among a long list of political leaders to make this reference in a political speech, including then-Senator Barak Obama, in his commencement address on June 2, 2006. ¹⁸

The New Yorker article traces the growing movement of Christian nationalism gaining momentum today through various channels and influencers, including religious leaders, media outlets, and political figures strategically aligning themselves with Christian nationalist sentiments. Respondents to the 2020 Pew Research Center study

associated Christian nationalism with particular groups and public figures including conservatives and the right-wing, evangelicals, fundamentalist Christians, Republicans, former President Donald Trump, and the “MAGA cult,” and Southerners. ¹⁹

The fusion of Christian nationalism with the political process exacerbates existing political schisms, increasing polarization within the US electorate. As a result, a segment of the Christian population is becoming deeply intertwined with the political ideology, creating a potent force that has shaped the political landscape. ²⁰

In the post-Obama era, two distinct Christian political camps emerged, each with its own values, priorities, and interpretations of national identity. On one side, an evangelical conservative political movement arose, advocating for policies and candidates they believed would uphold their vision of the United States as a Christian nation. ²¹ Conversely, a progressive movement and those advocating for a secular government arose, resisting what they perceived as an encroachment of religious values on political decision-making. This polarization affected electoral politics and permeated issues such as immigration, social justice, and climate change, with divergent perspectives often rooted in conflicting religious beliefs. The resulting political schism has made unity, compromise, and bipartisan cooperation increasingly challenging, as deeply held ideological differences drive individuals and political entities further apart.

A 2022 interview with Amanda Tyler of the Baptist Joint Committee conducted by The Center for American Progress reveals many Christian progressives’ positions against Christian nationalism. ²² The article’s writers characterize Christian nationalism as an

anti-democratic notion that America is a nation by and for Christians alone [which] threatens the principle of the separation of church and state and undermines the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Tyler says, “Christian nationalism undergirds several threats to religious freedom, including anti-Muslim bigotry, anti-Semitism, and government-sponsored religion.” ²³

The influence of Christian nationalism on political discourse is evident in the rhetoric employed by political leaders and media outlets aligned with this ideology. Issues once considered secular or non-partisan have become deeply entwined with religious undertones, framing debates in moral and religious terms. This shift in discourse has had profound implications for how the public discusses and understands political issues. Policy debates have been recast into moral battlegrounds, with Christian nationalist perspectives often shaping the narrative and framing the terms of engagement. This reality has made finding common ground difficult for individuals with differing beliefs, further contributing to the widening political schism.

Where Christian nationalist sentiments were once only carefully implied in the public discourse, they are now more often expressed openly. Consider the following statement from GOP Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, reported in a 2022 Business Insider article: “We need to be the party of nationalism, and I am a Christian, and I say it proudly, we should be Christian nationalists.” Greene added that, when the GOP learns to represent their voters, the party will grow. ²⁴ Greene made the statement in an interview at the Turning Point USA Student Action Summit held on July 23, 2022, at which she identified herself as a Christian nationalist while explaining that Republicans need to represent their voters instead of lobbyists or big donors. Another speaker at the event, former president Donald Trump, said:

We will not break, we will not yield, we will never give in, we will never give up, we will never, ever, ever back down. As long as we are confident and united, the tyrants we are fighting do not stand a chance. . . . Because we are Americans, and Americans kneel to God, and God alone. ²⁵

While Christian nationalism provided a sense of identity and purpose for many of its adherents, it has also raised concerns about its potential to marginalize the growing number of Americans not aligned with its religious and political values. The intertwining of religious and political ideologies has led to policies that may privilege certain religious perspectives over others, creating challenges for individuals and communities outside the Christian nationalist framework. Critics argue that privileging Christian values in policymaking may infringe upon the constitutional principle of separating church and state. A growing number of political leaders, however, are willing to publicly promote contradicting sentiments, such as GOP Rep. Lauren Boebert of Colorado, who has said:

The church is supposed to direct the government; the government is not supposed to direct the church. That is not how our founding fathers intended it. And I’m tired of this separation of church and state junk that’s not in the Constitution. ²⁶

This tension between opposing views of the relationship between the Church and the State has prompted legal battles over issues such as the display of religious symbols on public property, the teaching of creationism in schools, and access to reproductive healthcare services.

In the post-Obama era, the relationship between Christian nationalism and political schism has become a defining feature of US politics. Fusing religious identity with political ideology has contributed to a deepening polarization that extends beyond policy differences to encompass fundamental questions about national identity and values. As the nation grapples with these challenges, fostering dialogue transcending religious and political divides is crucial. Understanding the complex interplay between Christian nationalism and political schism is essential for finding common ground and promoting a more inclusive and pluralistic vision of the United States. Balancing the protection of religious freedom with the principles of a secular government remains a delicate task, requiring careful navigation to ensure the diverse voices and beliefs within the US mosaic are respected and accommodated.

Evangelicalism and the political schism

The role of nationalistic evangelicals in the political schism in the United States in the post-Obama era has been significant and complex. Evangelicals, who constitute a sizable portion of the US population, have played a crucial role in shaping the political landscape through their engagement in social and political issues. An AP VoteCast survey shows that 81% of White evangelical Protestant voters chose Donald Trump in 2020, compared with 18% who voted for Joe Biden. ²⁷ A May 2022 study showed that the most substantial base of support for Christian nationalism comes from Republicans who identify as evangelical. ²⁸

During the Obama administration (2009–2017), a notable divide existed among evangelicals in their responses to various policy issues. Some evangelicals supported President Obama’s emphasis on social justice, healthcare reform, and immigration reform. A significant segment of evangelicals opposed these policies, however, particularly on issues such as abortion, LGBTQ+ rights, and religious freedom.

The 2016 presidential election further highlighted the political schism among evangelicals. Despite concerns about his personal conduct, many White evangelicals rallied behind Donald Trump because they believed he would advance their policy priorities, such as conservative judicial appointments, pro-life policies, and religious freedom protections. ²⁹ This support played a crucial role in Trump’s electoral success. The alliance between White evangelicals and the Republican Party strengthened during the Trump administration, leading to a further polarization of US politics. Evangelicals supported conservative candidates and policies, contributing to a more pronounced partisan divide. ³⁰

Issues such as the nomination of conservative judges, opposition to LGBTQ+ rights, and efforts to restrict abortion access became central to the evangelical political agenda. This alignment with the Republican Party on these critical issues contributed to the widening gap between evangelicals and other religious or secular groups. The evangelical influence on the political schism is also reflected in how theological and moral issues became politicized, shaping the overall discourse in US politics. This polarization has persisted, with evangelicals continuing to be a crucial voting bloc in subsequent elections.

Notably, within the evangelical community, a diversity of opinion exists, and not all evangelicals share the same political views. There are evangelical voices advocating for a more inclusive and socially progressive agenda, contributing to internal debates within the evangelical community. Brantley Gasaway has examined “left-leaning” evangelical groups, such as Sojourners and Evangelicals for Social Action, that emerged in the early 1970s. He identifies their theology regarding the responsibility of Christians “to promote social justice—that has animated progressive evangelicals’ activism and bound together their unusual combination of political positions.” ³¹

In summary, the role of evangelicals in the political schism of the post-Obama era is characterized by a complex interplay of religious, moral, and political considerations. The alignment of many evangelicals with the Republican Party has had a lasting impact on the political landscape, contributing to the polarization that continues to shape US politics today.

Reconciliation in the Epistles of Paul

The cross of Christ stands as the ultimate expression of God’s reconciling love. Central to Paul’s understanding of reconciliation is the atoning work of Christ on the cross. Romans 5:10 highlights the idea that believers are reconciled to God through the death of God’s Son. The concept of atonement, intertwined with reconciliation, underscores the idea of Christ’s sacrificial death as how humanity is redeemed and brought into a right relationship with God. ³²

Second Corinthians 5:18-19 is a foundational text for understanding Paul’s theological framework, in which believers are not passive recipients of unifying peace but active participants in God’s ongoing mission of reconciliation to the world. According to Rom 5:11, the role of Jesus Christ as the mediator of reconciliation is implied in “through our Lord Jesus Christ.” The 2 Corinthians text emphasizes God as the source of reconciliation. At the same time, Romans emphasizes a union with God through Jesus Christ as the means through which reconciliation is received. The alignment between the two passages lies in their shared understanding that reconciliation with God is made possible through the work of Jesus Christ. Both passages emphasize the centrality of Christ in the process of reconciliation and acknowledge God as the ultimate source of this transformative unification.

Paul consistently emphasizes the impact of the reconciliation process on believers and their subsequent role as ambassadors. Paul himself embodied this role as he wrote his letter to the Ephesian believers while imprisoned under house arrest: “Pray also for me, so that when I speak a message may be given to me to make known with boldness the mystery of the gospel, for which I am an ambassador in chains” (Eph 6:19-20).

Affirmed in Rom 5:10, the death of Jesus on the cross is the once-for-all atoning act that bridges the gap between a holy God and fallen humanity. While 2 Cor 5:10-20 focuses on believers being reconciled to God and being entrusted with the ministry of reconciliation, Rom 5:11 emphasizes the joy and rejoicing believers experience in God through the reconciliation received through Jesus Christ. Both passages affirm Christ as the agent of reconciliation and God as the source of this reconciliation. They complement each other, offering a comprehensive perspective on the significance of Christ in bringing about reconciliation between humanity and God. The believers’ role as agents of reconciliation in 2 Cor 5:20 is often missed. It should be preached, emphasizing its power to put an end to the social and political rancor that threatens the unity of the body of Christ.

In Galatians 2:20, Paul speaks of believers being crucified with Christ, underscoring a profound transformation in identity. A union with Christ marks this new identity, and believers are called to live in light of their rebirth. The implications of this identity shift are evident in the exhortation elsewhere to “put on the new self” (Col 3:10). The new self sets the followers of Jesus apart from their old selves and unbelievers. Paul’s words to believers in 2 Cor 6:14 emphasize the new self’s holy union with Christ and how radically different each state of being is.

Romans 6:3-4 presents baptism as a participation in Christ’s death and resurrection. This sacramental act symbolizes the believer’s identification with Christ’s reconciling work, marking a transition from estrangement to reconciliation. Baptism, for Paul, is a tangible expression of the believer’s union with Christ and participation in the story of reconciliation.

Paul addresses the Corinthians’ misuse of the Lord’s Supper in 1 Cor 11:17-34, highlighting its communal significance. The Lord’s Supper is a proclamation of the Lord’s death until He comes, embodying the ongoing reality of Christ’s reconciling work. The communal aspect of the Lord’s Supper reinforces the idea of reconciliation within the body of believers, calling for self-examination and unity.

While the spiritual union with Christ sets apart believers and unbelievers, believers are called not to be divided among them by hostility. Ephesians 2:14-16 expands on reconciliation by illustrating how Christ has broken down the dividing wall of hostility, reconciling Jews and Gentiles into one body. Believers, as members of this reconciled community, are called to maintain the unity of the Spirit. This text underscores Paul’s vision of reconciliation extending vertically (toward God) and horizontally (toward fellow believers).

Understanding Paul’s reconciliation theology necessitates examining the historical, cultural, and theological contexts in which he wrote. The Greco-Roman world of the first century, with its diverse religious and philosophical influences, shaped Paul’s language and concepts. Paul’s Jewish background and encounter with the risen Christ influenced his understanding of reconciliation within the broader biblical narrative. Throughout his epistles, Paul emphasizes Christ’s atoning work on the cross. Believers are, therefore, reconciled to God and become participants in the ongoing mission of reconciliation. The identity shift, sacramental practices, communal unity, and mission of the believers toward reconciliation underscore the richness of Paul’s theological vision. Understanding this theology’s historical, cultural, and theological contexts enables a more nuanced appreciation of Paul’s enduring contribution to Christian doctrine and ethics. The connection between the reconciliation offered by Christ and the believer, as articulated by Paul, remains a profound and essential aspect of Christian faith in practice.

As believers embrace the biblical foundation of reconciliation and their responsibilities as ambassadors, it becomes a transformative force among them and, by virtue of their ministry, society. The message of reconciliation challenges divisions based on political ideology. From the Old Testament promises to the New Testament fulfillment in Jesus Christ, the narrative of reconciliation underscores the divine imperative to reconcile broken relationships to a state of profound unity. As believers engage with the theological underpinnings of reconciliation—grace, forgiveness, and justice—they become a powerful force for healing, restoration, and unity among them across the political divide, reflecting the ultimate reconciliation achieved through the sacrificial death and resurrection of Jesus Christ and the work of the Holy Spirit.

Biblical application to contemporary political schism

The deep divisions, animosities, and hostility in the contemporary political landscape challenge the very fabric of US society. In such polarized environments, preaching biblical lessons on reconciliation offers timeless wisdom and guidance to followers of Jesus. Time and time again, Christianity has been in the center of human hostility with the opportunity to bring healing or to be complicit in division. In his exploration of reasons for the complicity of Christians in the Rwandan genocide of 1994, Miroslav Volf questions how Christians could be involved in the killings of an estimated 800,000 people. ³³ The author asks specifically, “Why are Christians, the presumed agents of peace, at best impotent in the face of their people’s conflicts and at worst perpetrators of the most heinous crimes?” Although complex, the answers yield insights that apply to the present state of political hostility among Christians in the United States in the post-Obama era. In his exploration, Volf uncovers a web of entanglement between the Christian community and the social, cultural, and political schism that led to “an idolatrous shift of loyalty” among members of the Rwandan Christian community, which manifested in greater allegiance to their respective culture, ethnic group, or nation. ³⁴

On January 6, 2021, a violent mob of supporters of then-President Donald Trump stormed the US Capitol. The incident occurred as Congress was in the process of certifying the Electoral College results of the 2020 presidential election, which confirmed Joe Biden as the winner. The attack resulted in multiple injuries to both law enforcement officers and civilians, as well as the tragic death of several individuals. The incident raised concerns about the state of democracy, the peaceful transfer of power, and the role of political rhetoric in influencing public behavior. The events of that infamous day led to widespread condemnation from political leaders across the spectrum, both in the United States and internationally. As I watched the events of that day, I cannot help but reflect, as Miroslave Volf did, on the involvement of Christians in the Rwandan genocide of 1994, asking the same question, “Why are Christians, the presumed agents of peace, at best impotent in the face of their people’s conflicts and at worst perpetrators of the most heinous crimes?”

In a November 2023 interview, theologian and President of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Albert Mohler, states his position about the foundations of Western civilization, a position relevant to the discussion about the entanglement of Christian nationalism with the identities of people who call themselves Christians, conservatives, and US citizens. Mohler said:

Western civilization was a Christian project, period. It was a civilizational project that made no sense to people who had no worldview other than the worldview supplied by the Scripture that begins, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth,” and goes through all the truth claims of Christianity. All the narratives were Christian narratives. All the morality was understood to be Christian morality. The ruler was described as a Christian prince. The citizens were described as Christian citizens. . . . We’re talking about the English-speaking Enlightenment that shaped, in particular, the United States. ³⁵

Mohler’s position on the foundations of the “Christian project” represents a common belief among White evangelicals in the post-Obama era, that America was founded as a Christian nation. On the other side of the divide are those, including Christians, who believe Christian nationalism is anti-democratic and antithetical to the fundamental values of a free society. Meanwhile, political rhetoric on both sides of the divide tries to justify hostile extreme political ideologies even when those ideologies prove to weaken the bonds of national unity. In another November 2023 conversation on this topic, hosted by Mohler on his own site, his interviewee Yoram Hazony, President of the Herzl Institute in Jerusalem, offers what could be a more conciliatory way of arriving at a shared understanding from Hazony’s self-described “Jewish tradition”:

Judaism is a school of thought more than it is a sharp doctrine, a sharp creed. And our approach to the way you look at the world is perspectival. The truth emerges from the argument among different perspectives, each one grasping a certain piece of the truth, but none of us have the ability to grasp the truth finally and holy. ³⁶

Second Corinthians 5:10-20 provides an example of preaching reconciliation amid hostile ideological differences among Jesus’s followers, which could guide the Christian community in the United States away from its own extreme shifts of loyalty and toward a reconciliatory position. Can Paul’s theology of reconciliation in 2 Cor 5:10-20 be applied to situations in which a Christian community shifts from loyalty to Christ toward loyalty to national and political identity? Application of the text to contexts discussed in this article reveals three fundamental conclusions: (1) reconciliation takes precedence over rituals; (2) reconciliation is greater than religion; and (3) reconciliation is greater than ideological identity. These conclusions are relevant today in light of the current state of politics in the United States.

If the applicability of preaching is based on the relevance of its emphasis, then preaching a sermon on recognizing humanity in one another when differences threaten to divide would benefit from an illustration of what to do. Such a sermon must acknowledge the dignity of those with opposing views and seek understanding beyond divisive issues. If the sermon’s primary reference is 2 Cor 5:10-20, these may well be its building blocks ³⁷ :

Applying these biblical principles to contemporary political schisms requires a deliberate commitment to reconciliation that supersedes a person’s political ideology. Instead of perpetuating a culture of hostility, animosity, and division, individuals can draw inspiration from Jesus’s teaching to prioritize relationships, initiate respectful dialogue, practice humility, restore trust, and take personal responsibility for fostering unity. Regarding political differences, these commitments mean transcending partisan divides, engaging in civil discourse, and actively working toward common goals that benefit society whenever possible. This work involves seeing beyond political labels to recognize all individuals’ shared humanity and dignity, irrespective of their political beliefs. By prioritizing reconciliation over ideological differences, initiating dialogue with empathy, practicing humility, restoring trust, and taking personal responsibility, individuals can contribute to healing the fractures within political communities. Ultimately, the message of reconciliation aligns with the broader biblical narrative, reminding believers of the power of grace, forgiveness, and unity in the face of division.

Assuming reconciliation is fundamental to the practices of Christianity, why have so many Christian community members been caught in the descending whirlwind of ideological divisions, policy disagreements, and polarization between the political parties? Furthermore, how does preaching reconciliation influence the public practices of the Christian community? Answering these questions could be significant to disentangling Christianity from the political schism so that Christianity influences the political process toward reconciliation instead of being influenced by the political process so that it further divides the Christian community and the nation.

Preaching messages of reconciliation

Preaching has long served as a conduit for delivering messages about the Kingdom of God to the Christian community, messages that shape theological perspectives, moral values, and societal attitudes. One of the profound and resonant themes within effective preaching is the message of reconciliation. Benjamin Burkholder discusses the “hand-in-hand” relationship between the Kingdom and atonement. He contends, “The sin in God’s own people must be removed [by the cross] before the Kingdom arrives, and Jesus’s death on the cross removes this barrier, ushering in the eschatological realities of Kingdom and covenant.” ³⁸

Rooted in Old Testament and New Testament theological principles and aimed at removing barriers while fostering harmony and healing, messages of reconciliation represent a potent force for unity among followers of Christ who may have been divided socially. In 1 Corinthians, Paul gives an example of how to address division and partisan loyalty among believers, which is the basis for my translation and interpretation of the text with application for addressing divisive socio-political constructs. ³⁹ Preaching unity in the face of a political schism requires a firm theological foundation, effective communication, and culturally relevant messaging.

Conclusion

Effective preaching of unity in the face of political schisms requires a multifaceted approach that encompasses theological depth, strategic communication, cultural relevance, authenticity, and an awareness of the life-changing and social implications of the message. Effective preachers of reconciliation guide their congregations toward a deeper understanding of this profound and redemptive message. In doing so, they contribute to individuals’ spiritual growth and development and create diverse communities characterized by justice, compassion, and healing.

Observers of the political climate in the United States in the post-Obama era are witnessing the intertwining of Christian religious identity with political ideology, giving rise to deep divides that affect the political arena and the unity of the “body of Christ.” The political schisms across the US political landscape, exacerbated by the influences of Christian nationalism, present a complex challenge that extends into the Christian community. Christian nationalism, as a potent force shaping political discourse and attitudes, has played a pivotal role in this polarization, fueling divisions that extend beyond policy differences to fundamental questions about national identity and values.

The Christian community, particularly White evangelicals, finds itself entangled in this political schism, compromising the unity for which Jesus prayed. The intertwining of Christian identity with political ideology has led to a fragmentation of the Christian community along political fault lines, hindering its ability to fulfill the mission of reconciliation that lies at the heart of its belief system.

Amid these challenges, the teachings of 2 Cor 5:10-20 offer a theological foundation for addressing and transcending the political schisms. The apostle Paul, through his adept integration of atonement theology and engagement with redemptive history, emphasizes the transformative power of Christ’s love and sacrifice. This passage underscores believers’ responsibility as ambassadors of Christ entrusted with the ministry of reconciliation.

In the face of political schisms, preaching messages of reconciliation becomes a Gospel imperative. Atonement theology, emphasizing Christ’s sacrifice and the supernatural power of forgiveness and redemption, provides a compelling basis for believers to disentangle themselves from political schisms. In addition, a nuanced understanding of redemptive history allows preachers to relate the overarching narrative of reconciliation woven throughout scripture, grounding believers in a comprehensive understanding of God’s redemptive plan.

The challenges posed by Christian nationalism and political schisms demand a shift in perspective within the Christian community. Rather than evaluating individuals based on ideological positions, believers are called to view fellow believers and their neighbors through their relationship with Christ. Preaching unity becomes a transformative force that not only addresses divisive influences but also actively fosters a community committed to the ministry of reconciliation.

As the nation grapples with the delicate balance between protecting religious freedom and upholding the principles of a secular government, the Christian community can be a beacon of unity. By embracing the teachings of 2 Cor 5:10-20 and preaching messages of reconciliation, believers can contribute to a more inclusive and pluralistic vision of America. The task ahead is challenging, but rooted in the transformative power of Christ’s love, the Christian community can navigate the complexities of the post-Obama era and work toward healing the fractures within the “body of Christ” and the broader US society.